DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
This is in response to a letter for a patent filed 03 April 2025 in which claims 1-10 were presented for examination. Claims 1-10 are currently pending.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03 April 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. However, the Patent(s) and/or publication(s) cited in the office actions submitted in the information disclosure statement(s) have not been separately considered. A copy of PTO-1449s are attached hereto.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention recites an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1
Claims 1-8 are directed to similarity determining system (i.e., a machine); Claim 9 is directed to a method (i.e., a process); and Claim 10 is directed to a design system (i.e., a machine). Therefore, Claims 1-10 all fall within the one of the four statutory categories of invention.
Step 2A Prong 1
Independent claims 1, 9, and 10 substantially recite:
storing the basic shape data including the basic element which is at least one of a hole, a slot, axis, step, notch, corner, plane, or ridge line, and storing the related shape data including the related element, which is at least one of a hole, a slot, axis, step, notch, corner, plane, or ridge line, when the related shape data is uploaded from a client terminal;
recognize coordinates of the related element included in the related shape data in an XYZ space and a dimension of the related element;
recognize coordinates of the basic element included in the basic shape data in an XYZ space and a dimension of the basic element;
compare the coordinates and the dimension of the related element with the coordinates and the dimension of the basic element; and
determine that the basic element and the related element are similar, when meeting at least one of conditions that the coordinates of the related element matches the coordinates of the basic element or that the dimension of the related element matches the dimension of the basic element. The aforementioned limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping which may be interpreted as at least as “Mathematical Concepts which includes mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations and/or “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” which includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
Further, the limitations, “recognize,” “recognize,” “compare,” and “determine”, as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by the human mind (including observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions). That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by the human mind.
Independent claim 10 substantially recite:
storing basic shape data which is 3D CAD data of an article configured from a plurality of elements and includes a basic element associated with basic attribute information; and
prepare, on the basis of the basic shape data, related shape data corresponding to a mirror article having a bilaterally symmetrical shape with respect to the article indicated by the basic shape data;
associate the basic element included in the basic shape data with a related element which is included in the related shape data and in an inverted position in comparison to the basic element; and
associate related attribute information including the basic attribute information, which is associated with the basic element, with the related element. The aforementioned limitations, as drafted, are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation under Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity grouping which may be interpreted as at least as “Mathematical Concepts which includes mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, and mathematical calculations and/or “Managing Personal Behavior or Relationships or Interactions Between People” which includes social activities, teaching, and following rules or instructions.
Further, the limitations, “associate” and “associate”, as drafted are processes that, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation by a “Mental Process” including the human mind (i.e. observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions). That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed by the human mind.
Step 2A Prong 2
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, claim 1 recites the additional elements: “a similarity determining system,” “a memory,” “a client terminal” and “a computer”; and claim 9 recites the additional elements: “a similarity determining system” and “a client terminal” to perform the “storing/storing,” “recognize/recognizing,” “recognize/recognizing,” “compare/comparing,” and “determine/determining” steps 1 and 9. Claim 10 recites the additional elements: ”a design system,” “a memory,” and “a computer” to perform the “storing,” “prepare,” “associate,” and “associate” steps. The claimed computer components in the steps of claims 1, 9, and 10 are recited at a high-level of generality and are merely invoked as a tool to perform the abstract idea (i.e., “a similarity determining system,” “a memory,” “a client terminal” and “a computer” in claim 1 ; “a similarity determining system” and “a client terminal” in claim 9 performing generic computer functions of “storing/storing,” “recognize/recognizing,” “recognize/recognizing,” “compare/comparing,” and “determine/determining”; and ”a design system,” “a memory,” and “a computer” in claim 10 performing generic computer functions of “storing,” “prepare,” “associate,” and “associate”) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the generic computer components (i.e. reciting “a similarity determining system,” “a memory,” “a client terminal” and “a computer” in claim 1; “a similarity determining system” and “a client terminal” in claim 9; and ”a design system,” “a memory,” and “a computer” in claim 10). The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (“a similarity determining system,” “a memory,” “a client terminal” and “a computer” in claim 1; “a similarity determining system” and “a client terminal” in claim 9; and ”a design system,” “a memory,” and “a computer” in claim 10). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Step 2B
The independent claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using the (“similarity determining system,” “memory,” “client terminal” and “computer” in the context of claim 1; and using the “similarity determining system” and “client terminal” in the context of claim 9 to perform the “storing/storing,” “recognize/recognizing,” “recognize/recognizing,” “compare/comparing,” and “determine/determining” steps; and using the ”design system,” “memory,” and “computer” in the context of claim 10 to perform the “storing,” “prepare,” “associate,” and “associate” steps amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Thus, even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claims add significantly more (i.e. inventive concept) to the abstract idea. The claims are patent ineligible.
As per dependent claim 2, the recitation “associate related attribute information including the basic attribute information with the related element similar to the basic element, when meeting at least one of conditions that the coordinates of the related element matches the coordinates of the basic element or that the dimension of the related element matches the dimension of the basic element” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity and a mental process as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claims 3, 5, and 7, the limitations merely narrow the previously recited abstract idea limitations. Dependent claim 3 recites the basic attribute information and the related attribute information include a tolerance of a distance from an origin to the basic element with reference to the origin set in the basic shape data, a tolerance of a distance from a geometric reference to a central axis of the basic element, coaxiality, concentricity, surface processing, effective depth, full thread length, slot width tolerance, appearance plane, a plane constituting appearance of the article, or surface roughness. Dependent claim 5 recites wherein the first tolerance information is a tolerance of a distance from an origin associated with the basic element to the basic element, a tolerance between the basic elements, a tolerance of a distance of the basic element with respect to a geometric reference, or a tolerance of a distance from a geometric reference to a central axis of the basic element. Dependent 7 recites wherein the second tolerance information is a tolerance of size, a tolerance of a hole diameter, a tolerance of an axis diameter, a tolerance of width, a tolerance of length, a tolerance of depth, or a tolerance of an outer diameter. For the reasons described above with respect to claims 3, 5, and 7, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 4, the recitations “stores basic attribute information associated with at least one basic element of the basic shape data, and related attribute information associated with at least one related element of the related shape data, and the computer is configured to associate first tolerance information, which is included in the basic attribute information and is a tolerance with respect to a distance, with at least one related element of the related shape date”; and “store the first tolerance information, when determining that the basic element and the related element are similar” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 6, the recitations of “stores basic attribute information associated with at least one basic element of the basic shape data, and related attribute information associated with at least one related element of the related shape data”; and “associate second tolerance information, which is included in the basic attribute information and is a tolerance with respect to a dimension of the basic element, with at least one related element of the related shape date;” and “store the second tolerance information as common information common between the basic attribute information and the related attribute information, when determining that the basic element and the related element are similar” are further directed to a method of organizing human activity as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
As per dependent claim 8, the recitation “determine that the basic element and the related element are similar when the coordinates of the related element matches the coordinates of the basic element and a hole diameter of the related element matches a hole diameter of the basic element” is further directed to a method of organizing human activity and/or a mental process as described in claim 1. Therefore, this judicial exception is not meaningfully integrated into a practical application, or significantly more than the abstract idea. Similar to claim 1, the recitation does not provide a practical application of the abstract idea, or significantly more than the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims 2-8 have been given the full two part analysis including analyzing the additional limitations both individually and in combination. Dependent Claims 2-8, when analyzed individually, and in combination, are also held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The dependent claims fail to establish that the claims do not recite an abstract idea because the additional recited limitations of the dependent claims merely further narrow the abstract idea of the independent claims. The dependent claims recite no additional elements that would integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Simply implementing the abstract idea on generic computer components is not a practical application of the judicial exception and does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Prior Art Discussion
As per independent claims 1 and 9, the best prior art,
1) Sykes et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0096967 A1) discloses a system and a method for manufacturing parametric parts by generating an encoded part description as the part is being designed, then the encoded part description for the part is compared with encoded part descriptions for parts having already stored designs to identify similar parts, one of the similar parts is identified, a selection of one of the similar parts is received, and a parametric part model for the selected part is used to fabricate the part.
2) Ramani et al. (2004/0249809 A1) discloses methods, systems, and data structures for performing searches for similar 3D models and 2D drawings for a given 2D drawing based on a need to reduce the time needed in responding to a Request For Quote (RFQ).
However, Sykes et al. and Ramani et al. alone or in combination, neither
anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art. The features include:
recognizing coordinates of the related element included in the related shape data in an XYZ space and a dimension of the related element;
recognizing coordinates of the basic element included in the basic shape data in an XYZ space and a dimension of the basic element;
comparing the coordinates and the dimension of the related element with the coordinates and the dimension of the basic element; and
determining that the basic element and the related element are similar, when meeting at least one of conditions that the coordinates of the related element matches the coordinates of the basic element or that the dimension of the related element matches the dimension of the basic element.
As per claim independent claim 10, the best prior art,
1) Sykes et al. (US PG Pub. 2020/0096967 A1) discloses a system and a method for manufacturing parametric parts by generating an encoded part description as the part is being designed, then the encoded part description for the part is compared with encoded part descriptions for parts having already stored designs to identify similar parts, one of the similar parts is identified, a selection of one of the similar parts is received, and a parametric part model for the selected part is used to fabricate the part.
2) Zhou et al. (US PG Pub. 2013/0182008 A1) symmetry-based visualization for enhancing anomaly detection is a framework for facilitating symmetry-based visualization.
3) Ramani et al. (2004/0249809 A1) discloses methods, systems, and data structures for performing searches for similar 3D models and 2D drawings for a given 2D drawing based on a need to reduce the time needed in responding to a Request For Quote (RFQ).
However, Sykes et al., Zhou et al. and Ramani et al. alone or in combination, neither
anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art. The features include:
prepare, on the basis of the basic shape data, related shape data corresponding to a mirror article having a bilaterally symmetrical shape with respect to the article indicated by the basic shape data;
associate the basic element included in the basic shape data with a related element which is included in the related shape data and in an inverted position in comparison to the basic element; and
associate related attribute information including the basic attribute information, which is associated with the basic element, with the related element.
As per claims 1 and 9, the best NPL prior art
1) FESTO FluidDraw® P6 Manual 09-2019 396 pgs. (hereinafter referred to as “FESTO”). Discloses if the user defined attributes option is selected, you can specify an attribute name and type for the new attribute. You can list and remove the attributes in the Attribute Properties... and Products tables using the Supplier button.
However, FESTO, alone or in combination with the prior art cited above, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art. The features include:
recognizing coordinates of the related element included in the related shape data in an XYZ space and a dimension of the related element;
recognizing coordinates of the basic element included in the basic shape data in an XYZ space and a dimension of the basic element;
comparing the coordinates and the dimension of the related element with the coordinates and the dimension of the basic element; and
determining that the basic element and the related element are similar, when meeting at least one of conditions that the coordinates of the related element matches the coordinates of the basic element or that the dimension of the related element matches the dimension of the basic element.
As per claim 10, the best NPL prior art
1) FESTO FluidDraw® P6 Manual 09-2019 396 pgs. (hereinafter referred to as “FESTO”). Discloses if the user defined attributes option is selected, you can specify an attribute name and type for the new attribute. You can list and remove the attributes in the Attribute Properties... and Products tables using the Supplier button.
However, FESTO, alone or in combination with the prior art cited above, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, nor renders obvious the below noted features of applicant’s invention as the noted features amount to more than a predictable use of elements in the prior art. The features include:
prepare, on the basis of the basic shape data, related shape data corresponding to a mirror article having a bilaterally symmetrical shape with respect to the article indicated by the basic shape data;
associate the basic element included in the basic shape data with a related element which is included in the related shape data and in an inverted position in comparison to the basic element; and
associate related attribute information including the basic attribute information, which is associated with the basic element, with the related element.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Leila Zehtaban et al, “A framework for similarity recognition of CAD models”, 19 April 2016, Journal of Computational Design and Engineering 3 (2016) 274–285, discloses that the current paper addresses a framework for recognition and flexible retrieval of similar models in product design. The idea is to establish an infrastructure for transferring design as well as the required PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) know-how to the design phase of product development in order to reduce the design time since reusing such information can reduce the product cost and time; along with optimizing the product design. Different information could be derived and learnt from the already existing design including geometry, material, process planning, manufacturing, price and generally.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FREDA A. NELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7076. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00am - 6:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Shannon Campbell can be reached at 571-272-5587. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/F.A.N/Examiner, Art Unit 3628
/DANIEL VETTER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3628
Prosecution Insights